Crime as Sociological vs. Social Problem: Key Distinctions

Introduction to Crime as a Sociological and Social Problem

Criminology offers two distinct frameworks for thinking about crime: treating it as a sociological problem and treating it as a social problem. Although these perspectives overlap, they differ significantly in their goals, methods, and policy implications. Understanding this distinction is essential for evaluating both theoretical explanations of criminal behavior and the practical measures used to address it.

Sociological Theories of Criminal Behavior

Taking crime as a sociological issue, one would attempt to theorize the causes of criminal behavior, the social construction of the concept of crime, and solutions to crime at a societal level. Sociological and psychological theories of criminal behavior are heavily intertwined. In general, sociological theories of criminality attempt to connect the individual's behavior with broader social structures and cultural variables, discuss how the contradicting factors of these variables interact to produce criminal behavior, investigate how these structures have historically developed, and view criminal behavior from the standpoint of social constructionism, concentrating on the social causes of criminality.

For instance, Durkheim (1897) coined the term anomie to describe a feeling of disconnection from society or a perceived lack of social norms. He originally used the concept to help explain suicide, and sociologists later applied it to describe the disconnect between the individual and the collective social consciousness. In this viewpoint, criminality results as a consequence of the failure to properly socialize individuals and/or a consequence of the unequal opportunities that exist between different groups of people (Merton, 1968).

Society constructs criminality, and therefore certain types of activities are labeled criminal. However, this label is often applied unequally across different social groups, and if the definition of criminal behavior were applied literally, virtually everyone in society would be engaging in some form of criminal conduct (Schur, 1965). Social programs designed to increase legitimate opportunities for advancement and the acquisition of goods would therefore eliminate much criminality in society. Programs that properly socialize children while providing adequate support would also reduce criminal behavior.

Finally, unlike purely psychological theories, sociological theories of criminal behavior tend to advocate for stricter and harsher penalties for more serious crimes. It is well known that of the many felony criminal acts brought before the courts, only a small percentage actually go to trial, and only a small percentage of those result in imprisonment. Imprisonment, in the sociological view, should include both punishment and rehabilitation (Hester & Eglin, 1992).

Crime as a Social Problem

When viewing crime as a social problem or social issue, one is referring to a problem that influences and conflicts with the goals of most individuals within a particular society (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2014). Social problems are considered to be issues that are beyond the control of individuals in a society and may also be a source of conflicting opinion regarding what is perceived as moral, right, or functional for members of that society (Mooney et al., 2014).

When viewing crime as a social problem, one is not concerned with theories regarding the social construction of criminal behavior, how crime is defined by a particular society, or how the definition of criminal behavior changes between societies or over time within the same society. Instead, the focus is on the functional aspects of dealing with criminal behavior in a particular society or context (Mooney et al., 2014). Thus, when viewing crime as a social problem, the emphasis is placed on solving or reducing criminal behavior rather than on understanding it and how it changes across time or across different cultures and societies.

When one views crime as a social problem, one is more likely to try to determine which types of sanctions are most useful in preventing recidivism in individuals convicted of crimes, or what factors in a particular context are correlated with higher rates of criminal behavior. In the first case, one might examine how longer sentences for specific types of crimes reduce future offenses of that type, or how rehabilitation for minor drug offenses compares in effectiveness to criminal sentencing for the same offenses. In the second case, one might be interested in how factors such as social inequality, gun laws, and racism are related to specific types of criminal behavior in a society (Mooney et al., 2014).

Misconceptions from Official Crime Statistics

The first issue with the use of official crime statistics is that descriptive statistics released by official bodies about particular behaviors are not by themselves useful for making inferences about cause-and-effect relationships or for predicting a particular behavior (Maxfield & Babbie, 2014). Descriptive statistics such as those released by government agencies are simply data or summary figures calculated from available information. It can therefore be very misleading to use specific statistical figures to draw inferences about the factors that cause criminal behavior or the types of individuals who should be suspected of certain criminal acts (Maxfield & Babbie, 2014).

Using descriptive statistics to infer a causal relationship commits the fundamental error of assuming that correlation implies causation. For example, if official figures indicate that African Americans are convicted of crimes more often than Caucasians, one cannot conclude that being African American causes criminal behavior (Clinard, Quinney, & Wildeman, 2014). This logical error has serious real-world consequences, as discussed below.

Conclusion

The issue with the use of descriptive statistics — understanding what they mean, how they can be applied within inferential statistical frameworks to support decision-making, and the limitations imposed by the quality and completeness of available data — only comes with specialized training in statistics and research methods (Hatfield, 2014). Without such training, practitioners in correctional criminology risk drawing misleading conclusions that can reinforce systemic biases and misdirect policy.

References

Clinard, M. R., Quinney, R., & Wildeman, J. (2014). Criminal behavior systems: A typology. New York: Routledge.

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. New York: The Free Press.

Hatfield, R. C. (2014). The everything guide to coping with panic disorder. Avon, MA: Adams.

Hester, S., & Eglin, P. (1992). A sociology of crime. New York: Psychology Press.

Maxfield, M., & Babbie, E. (2014). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press.

Mooney, L., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2014). Understanding social problems. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.

Schur, E. (1965). Crime without victims. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.